cameroncrazy1984:Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

Is the Speaker the boss?

He was Minority Whip at the time they started getting busy.

Sounds to me like he was higher on the Congressional chain of command at the time, yes?

Not exactly sure where you are going with this. The members themselves technically are independent, with job titles like Whip having more to do with procedure than subordination. Certainly there would be influence, but I suspect that hiring/firing decisions of congressional staff is mostly up to the congressperson whose staff it is.

That said, there is more to office fraternization than hiring/firing decisions.

liam76:I had you favorited as stupid/dishonest enough to compare Israel to the holocaust, I think "federal employees won't get fired for getting BJ's from an intern in the office" may trump that level of stupid, bu tI think "never had a real job" may be more appropriate if you are pulling George costanza level of stupid claims about the workplace.

Vlad_the_Inaner:The members themselves technically are independent, with job titles like Whip having more to do with procedure than subordination. Certainly there would be influence, but I suspect that hiring/firing decisions of congressional staff is mostly up to the congressperson whose staff it is.

rnld:Vlad_the_Inaner: The members themselves technically are independent, with job titles like Whip having more to do with procedure than subordination. Certainly there would be influence, but I suspect that hiring/firing decisions of congressional staff is mostly up to the congressperson whose staff it is.

Who did Lewinsky work for?

The Federal Government. Civil Service. Ask the Federal Office of Personnel for details. She was assigned to the White House.

So, were you thinking someone was arguing it wasn't office fraternization?

Vlad_the_Inaner:rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: The members themselves technically are independent, with job titles like Whip having more to do with procedure than subordination. Certainly there would be influence, but I suspect that hiring/firing decisions of congressional staff is mostly up to the congressperson whose staff it is.

Who did Lewinsky work for?

The Federal Government. Civil Service. Ask the Federal Office of Personnel for details. She was assigned to the White House.

So, were you thinking someone was arguing it wasn't office fraternization?

That sums up Newt and Calista. The difference was that nobody spent $40 million investigating everything Newt did and then got in the middle of his divorce to save face.

cameroncrazy1984:lordjupiter: liam76: lordjupiter: Where is this policy written and show us how it applies to an elected official, specifically the Presidency, and not just lower appointed or hired positions.

I didn't say it did. I said he was hypocritical because he pushed for stricter rule on sexual harrassment, when he was pulling this.

Prove it or STFU

My favorite thing is that he says there's no specific rule, but he just KNOWS that Clinton made it stricter! It's just so obvious, like a rule about public masturbation, you just know it's there!

So jerking off at your desk falls under public masturbation, but BJ's at your desk is perfectly ok?Is this your final answer on jerking at the office for federal employees?

rnld:Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

The 6 year affair that continued when Newt was Speaker?

It makes a difference how?

Other than the fact that Calista was a subordinate to Newt?

Gee, you sure have some strange ideas. Congress is not an Army, where the ranking officers have technical command of subordinate ranks. Her job was first working for Gunderson, doing what he said to do, and later working for the House Committee on Agriculture, which as far as I know never included Gingrich.

Do you really thing that the Speaker of the House can do things like fire all the Minority Leaders staff if he wants to be a dick? That he can countermand the orders directly given by their boss by virtue of his office?

Vlad_the_Inaner:rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

The 6 year affair that continued when Newt was Speaker?

It makes a difference how?

Other than the fact that Calista was a subordinate to Newt?

Gee, you sure have some strange ideas. Congress is not an Army, where the ranking officers have technical command of subordinate ranks. Her job was first working for Gunderson, doing what he said to do, and later working for the House Committee on Agriculture, which as far as I know never included Gingrich.

Do you really thing that the Speaker of the House can do things like fire all the Minority Leaders staff if he wants to be a dick? That he can countermand the orders directly given by their boss by virtue of his office?

Vlad_the_Inaner:Gee, you sure have some strange ideas. Congress is not an Army, where the ranking officers have technical command of subordinate ranks. Her job was first working for Gunderson, doing what he said to do, and later working for the House Committee on Agriculture, which as far as I know never included Gingrich.

Do you really thing that the Speaker of the House can do things like fire all the Minority Leaders staff if he wants to be a dick? That he can countermand the orders directly given by their boss by virtue of his office?

cameroncrazy1984:liam76: So jerking off at your desk falls under public masturbation, but BJ's at your desk is perfectly ok?Is this your final answer on jerking at the office for federal employees?

Sure, why not. You have yet to come up with any rule for either one.

So, to make sure we are on the same page, since I can't "come up with a rule" you are arguing, the only "rule" against jerking off at the office for federal employees is "public masturbation" and that BJ's from interns in the office is not a fireable offense for federal employees.

Satanic_Hamster:liam76: That is funny, I have you tagged, as "idiot, cries trool when confused.

liam76:So, to make sure we are on the same page, since I can't "come up with a rule" you are arguing, the only "rule" against jerking off at the office for federal employees is "public masturbation" and that BJ's from interns in the office is not a fireable offense for federal employees.

Nope, I am not even arguing there's a rule. I'm arguing that you can't come up with a citation for your claim that Bill Clinton tightened such rules that apparently you say just exist in the ether.

rnld:Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: rnld: Vlad_the_Inaner: Because it's not office fraternization if a staff member works in a different department?

The 6 year affair that continued when Newt was Speaker?

It makes a difference how?

Other than the fact that Calista was a subordinate to Newt?

Gee, you sure have some strange ideas. Congress is not an Army, where the ranking officers have technical command of subordinate ranks. Her job was first working for Gunderson, doing what he said to do, and later working for the House Committee on Agriculture, which as far as I know never included Gingrich.

Do you really thing that the Speaker of the House can do things like fire all the Minority Leaders staff if he wants to be a dick? That he can countermand the orders directly given by their boss by virtue of his office?

/'open the safe, i want to snoop on your boss' Yeah that'll fly.

You are talking in circles.

Trying to paraphrase the same idea different ways looking for a way to get it through to you is not the same as 'circles'

cameroncrazy1984:liam76: So, to make sure we are on the same page, since I can't "come up with a rule" you are arguing, the only "rule" against jerking off at the office for federal employees is "public masturbation" and that BJ's from interns in the office is not a fireable offense for federal employees.Nope, I am not even arguing there's a rule. I'm arguing that you can't come up with a citation for your claim that Bill Clinton tightened such rules that apparently you say just exist in the ether.

I'm not the one making the claim that there is a rule. YOU are. Did you forget that? I'm saying show me the rule to back up the claim that YOU made.

This is a lot of fun. You get to continue avoiding backing up your claim while trying to get me to change the subject. Are you going to show us the rule that Clinton supposedly advocated for and tightened up, making him thus a "hypocrite" according to you? Or not?

liam76:cameroncrazy1984: liam76: So, to make sure we are on the same page, since I can't "come up with a rule" you are arguing, the only "rule" against jerking off at the office for federal employees is "public masturbation" and that BJ's from interns in the office is not a fireable offense for federal employees.

Nope, I am not even arguing there's a rule. I'm arguing that you can't come up with a citation for your claim that Bill Clinton tightened such rules that apparently you say just exist in the ether.

lordjupiter:liam76: cameroncrazy1984: liam76: So, to make sure we are on the same page, since I can't "come up with a rule" you are arguing, the only "rule" against jerking off at the office for federal employees is "public masturbation" and that BJ's from interns in the office is not a fireable offense for federal employees.

Nope, I am not even arguing there's a rule. I'm arguing that you can't come up with a citation for your claim that Bill Clinton tightened such rules that apparently you say just exist in the ether.

Then why were you asking for the rule?

Go ahead and show me those rules, please. Section and paragraph. :

[www.troll.me image 304x304]

He literally forgot which side of the argument he was on. That was funny.

Vlad_the_Inaner:Trying to paraphrase the same idea different ways looking for a way to get it through to you is not the same as 'circles'

Talking in circles is exactly what you are doing. Your problem is that you just throw stuff in the thread that is either you making things up or using the exact same argument against one person and supporting another.

rnld:Vlad_the_Inaner: Trying to paraphrase the same idea different ways looking for a way to get it through to you is not the same as 'circles'

Talking in circles is exactly what you are doing. Your problem is that you just throw stuff in the thread that is either you making things up or using the exact same argument against one person and supporting another.

Actually I was just adding facts about what Newt and Callista's professional relationship was. It's not my fault multiple people have funny ideas how personal congressional staff works. What you see as two sides are both arguing from a false model.

cameroncrazy1984:Look, my point is, liam76, that you can't just claim that rules "just exist and aren't written down specifically"

The fact that you are being so dick in the toaster stupid, so blatantly dishonest, or so fundamentally ignorant how the federal govt or any big govt works is a laughable.

The fact that you were given a clear example of how stupid your claim about needing specific rule, after the jerking off claim, and still pretend you need a rule "written down specifically" shows you aren't interested in an honest conversation.

cameroncrazy1984:and then try to claim specifically that Clinton "tightened up" said rules

So the clever picture means you don't want to weigh in on regular federal employees being able to get BJ's from interns in the office without fear of being fired, but to pretend that you are superior to anyone who points out you have to be stupid to think otherwise?

So the clever picture means you don't want to weigh in on regular federal employees being able to get BJ's from interns in the office without fear of being fired, but to pretend that you are superior to anyone who points out you have to be stupid to think otherwise?

Can you at least TRY? This is boring. You're boring. Stop boring people.

How is an event which happened to a man who was president TWO ADMINISTRATIONS ago, which he was actually impeached (though not tried) for, and which stopped being newsworthy when the Starr Report failed to unearth any other evidence of wrongdoing by said former president suddenly newsworthy again?

WHO CARES anymore, really? Why does this matter in the slightest? That was sixteen years ago...the statute of limitations ought to have run on "minor annoyances to the American public" by now. Someone needs to tell Rand Paul to STFU for gods sake and find a current scandal to flog.

How is an event which happened to a man who was president TWO ADMINISTRATIONS ago, which he was actually impeached (though not tried) for, and which stopped being newsworthy when the Starr Report failed to unearth any other evidence of wrongdoing by said former president suddenly newsworthy again?

WHO CARES anymore, really? Why does this matter in the slightest? That was sixteen years ago...the statute of limitations ought to have run on "minor annoyances to the American public" by now. Someone needs to tell Rand Paul to STFU for gods sake and find a current scandal to flog.

Because the Right is convinced (again) that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and they have nothing but guilt-by-association bullshiat, since the public isn't buying the 'Benghazi is WORSE THAN IF HITLER CRASHED AN AIRPLANE INTO THE STATUE OF LIBERTY ON 9/11!' crap anymore.

liam76:He then claims he isn;t weighing in on a rule, then I link to him asking for th erule.

Here's where you went wrong. I never said I wasn't "weighing in" on a rule. I said I wasn't arguing for the rule.

And you still have YET to show ANY proof that Clinton tightened up these rules as proof of his hypocrisy. Is that gonna happen anytime soon or are you gonna keep trying avoid answering this very easy question - if you're correct.

How is an event which happened to a man who was president TWO ADMINISTRATIONS ago, which he was actually impeached (though not tried) for, and which stopped being newsworthy when the Starr Report failed to unearth any other evidence of wrongdoing by said former president suddenly newsworthy again?

WHO CARES anymore, really? Why does this matter in the slightest? That was sixteen years ago...the statute of limitations ought to have run on "minor annoyances to the American public" by now. Someone needs to tell Rand Paul to STFU for gods sake and find a current scandal to flog.

I think the press should ask RP about plagiarism every day for the next 16 years. How soon do you think he'd get tired of that?

How is an event which happened to a man who was president TWO ADMINISTRATIONS ago, which he was actually impeached (though not tried) for, and which stopped being newsworthy when the Starr Report failed to unearth any other evidence of wrongdoing by said former president suddenly newsworthy again?

WHO CARES anymore, really? Why does this matter in the slightest? That was sixteen years ago...the statute of limitations ought to have run on "minor annoyances to the American public" by now. Someone needs to tell Rand Paul to STFU for gods sake and find a current scandal to flog.

Because the Right is convinced (again) that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and they have nothing but guilt-by-association bullshiat, since the public isn't buying the 'Benghazi is WORSE THAN IF HITLER CRASHED AN AIRPLANE INTO THE STATUE OF LIBERTY ON 9/11!' crap anymore.

And I didn't need to read the rest of the thread. You can't treat women as equals unless you treat them with respect.If all women were clones of Janet Reno, Clinton would have been the most respectful pres in history....